ZTE A41 Ultra vs Oppo Find X5 Pro: A Deep Dive into Flagship Performance
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing rapid charging and wireless convenience, the Oppo Find X5 Pro is the clear winner with its 80W wired and 50W wireless capabilities. However, the ZTE A41 Ultra presents a strong value proposition if charging speed isn't paramount, offering comparable performance at a potentially lower price point.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | ZTE A41 Ultra | Oppo Find X5 Pro |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | LTE | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66 - Global |
| 5G bands | SA/NSA | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - Global |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE / 5G |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 20, 28, 38, 41, 66, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - China | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022 | 2022, February 24 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022 | Available. Released 2022, March 14 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus), ceramic back or eco leather back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 161.9 x 72.9 x 8.5 mm (6.37 x 2.87 x 0.33 in) | 163.7 x 73.9 x 8.5 or 8.8 mm |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM |
| Weight | 199 g (7.02 oz) | 218 g or 195 g (6.88 oz) |
| - | IP68 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1440 x 3216 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~525 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~91.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~89.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 1B colors, 144Hz | LTPO2 AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, HDR10+, BT.2020, 500 nits (typ), 800 nits (HBM), 1300 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.00 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.50 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) | Octa-core (1x3.00 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.50 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) - GlobalOcta-core (1x3.05 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.85 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) - China |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8450 Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (4 nm) | Qualcomm SM8450 Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (4 nm) - GlobalMediatek Dimensity 9000 (4 nm) - China |
| GPU | Adreno 730 | Adreno 730 - GlobalMali-G710 MC10 - China |
| OS | Android 12, MyOS 12 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 14, ColorOS 14 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Hasselblad Color Calibration, color spectrum sensor, LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | - | 32 MP, f/2.4, 21mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 64 MP, f/1.7, 35mm (standard), 1/1.7", PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/3.4, 125mm (periscope telephoto), 1/4.0", PDAF, OIS, 5x optical zoom 50 MP, f/2.2, 14mm, 116˚ (ultrawide) | 50 MP, f/1.7, 25mm (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, multi-directional PDAF, OIS (3-axis sensor-shift, 2-axis lens-shift) 13 MP, f/2.4, 52mm (telephoto), 1/3.4", 2x optical zoom, PDAF 50 MP, f/2.2, 15mm, 110˚ (ultrawide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, multi-directional PDAF |
| Video | Yes | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps; gyro-EIS; HDR, 10‑bit video |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | Panorama |
| Single | 44 MP, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.4, 21mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | Unspecified | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive | 5.2, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS (L1), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1I+B1c), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1) |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.1, OTG | USB Type-C 3.1, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| - | Oppo Find X5 Pro Dimensity model has no MariSilicon X image chip, 5-axis OIS and Hasselblad’s color calibration | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 66W wired, PD3.0, QC4 | 80W wired, PD, 50% in 12 min 50W wireless, 100% in 47 min 10W reverse wireless |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black | Ceramic Black, Ceramic White, Blue (eco leather) |
| Models | - | PFEM10, CPH2305, PFFM20 |
| Price | - | € 449.00 / $ 430.24 / £ 1,049.00 |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 101h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -24.7 LUFS (Very good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 1012896 (v9) GeekBench: 3433 (v5.1) GFXBench: 44fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
ZTE A41 Ultra
- Potentially lower price point
- Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 performance
- Respectable 66W wired charging
- Slower charging than Oppo Find X5 Pro
- Missing display brightness data
- Limited camera specification details
Oppo Find X5 Pro
- 80W wired and 50W wireless charging
- Brighter display (762 nits)
- Potential performance edge with Dimensity 9000 (China variant)
- Higher price point
- Dimensity 9000 variant only available in China
- Potential for software bloat (Oppo's ColorOS)
Display Comparison
The Oppo Find X5 Pro boasts a measured peak brightness of 762 nits, suggesting a more visible screen in direct sunlight compared to the ZTE A41 Ultra (brightness data unavailable). Both devices likely utilize high refresh rate panels, but the Oppo’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) hints at superior black levels and dynamic range. Without specific panel technology details for the ZTE, it’s difficult to assess potential differences in color accuracy or viewing angles, but the Oppo’s display is likely the more visually impressive of the two.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are lacking. Without sensor size, aperture, or OIS details, a direct comparison is difficult. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on either device is unlikely to significantly impact image quality, serving primarily as a marketing feature. Image processing styles will likely differ, with Oppo historically favoring vibrant, saturated colors, while ZTE may lean towards a more natural look. The larger the main sensor, the better the low-light performance will be, but this information is currently unavailable.
Performance
Both the ZTE A41 Ultra and the global variant of the Oppo Find X5 Pro are equipped with the Qualcomm SM8450 Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (4nm). The CPU configuration is identical: 1x3.00 GHz Cortex-X2, 3x2.50 GHz Cortex-A710, and 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510. However, the China-specific Oppo Find X5 Pro utilizes the MediaTek Dimensity 9000 (4nm) with a slightly tweaked CPU configuration (1x3.05 GHz Cortex-X2, 3x2.85 GHz Cortex-A710, 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510), potentially offering a marginal performance boost. Thermal management will be crucial; the 4nm process helps, but sustained loads could still induce throttling. RAM speed (LPDDR5x) is not specified for either device, but is a key factor in overall responsiveness.
Battery Life
Both devices share an endurance rating of 101 hours, suggesting similar real-world battery life despite potentially different battery capacities (mAh not specified). However, the Oppo Find X5 Pro significantly outpaces the ZTE A41 Ultra in charging speed: 80W wired (0-50% in 12 minutes) versus 66W. The addition of 50W wireless charging (100% in 47 minutes) and 10W reverse wireless charging on the Oppo provides substantial convenience. While the ZTE’s 66W charging is respectable, the Oppo’s faster charging speeds will be a significant benefit for users who frequently need to top up their battery quickly.
Buying Guide
Buy the ZTE A41 Ultra if you need a powerful flagship experience without the premium price tag, and aren't heavily reliant on the fastest possible charging. Buy the Oppo Find X5 Pro if you prioritize blazing-fast wired and wireless charging, a potentially brighter display, and a more refined overall user experience, and are willing to pay a premium for those features.